What Beazley means to Latham

Page Tools

The US is already feeling easier about the prospect of a Latham win, writes Michelle Grattan.

What a difference a change of "voice" can make. Labor remains committed to Mark Latham's policy of withdrawing at least the bulk of the Australian forces from Iraq by Christmas. And the Opposition continues to say Australia should take a more independent stand within the US alliance. But Kim Beazley, restored this week to Labor's front bench, can manage to put an America-friendly patina on these things that, said earlier, have so upset the US.

And this week Latham started sounding different. The change in substance between his April performance at the Lowy Institute and Monday's speech (influenced by Beazley) to the Australian Institute of International Affairs was less important than the new tone.

In April, Latham nominated bringing the troops home by Christmas as one of a Labor's government's first tasks and called for "an equal partnership" with the US. The State Department replied tersely that it didn't see the current partnership as unequal.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Monday's speech contained the notable line: "Overwhelmingly, I regard the international role of the United States as a force for good." And the desire for Australia to be an "equal partner" had a softer sound.

Labor's Iraq policy has been recalibrated to include specific dollars for aid and the promise to contribute 20 to 30 non-combatant service or civilian people to help a United Nations force. Given that the Australian presence in Iraq - or a pull-out - is all about symbolism, that personnel promise is significant.

The speech hammered the point that Labor is serious about the war on terrorism. Listen up, terrorists and Americans both.

One person and one group wouldn't benefit by the election of Labor, Latham said: Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Labor fears the possibility of a pre-election terrorist hit. It is desperate to make clear it would be as tough on terrorism as the Coalition.

Latham, recalling that Labor had backed the post-September 11 attack on Afghanistan, also reassured the Americans (and warned the terrorists) that "should another (September 11-type) attack produce an identifiable source, we would be prepared to support similar action".

And, in a gesture that fulfils Labor's commitment to deepen its Asian involvement while also being consistent with US alliance interests, Latham proposed Australia should become more militarily engaged in the region to protect it from terrorist attacks.

The Americans will continue to dislike Labor's withdraw-from-Iraq policy. But the shrewd US observer should see Labor is surrounding it with promises and commitments so it can portray it as an evolution of Australia's stance, rather than a jarring break.

Add Beazley to the mix, and the Americans can think that even if Latham won, their ally wouldn't necessarily be going to hell in a handbasket. US ambassador to Australia Tom Schieffer, a confidant of George Bush, yesterday responded favourably to the new tone, seeing the speech and Beazley's appointment as "positive signs".

When he was leader, Beazley's folksy, prolix style was criticised. But in foreign policy, it can smooth delicate situations.

Take his remarks at Monday's news conference with Latham. Beazley talked about the "profound agreements" Australia had had with the US in the 1980s when he was defence minister, and also the disagreements, for example on president Reagan's "star wars" program. He went on: "There is always a requirement, I believe, on Australia to have a view not only of our own defence interests but what is in the interests of our ally, and to sit down with our ally and work out robustly what is the best thing to do for our region and for ourselves ...

"I never operate on the basis that you simply sit down and agree with your ally on everything. What you do is you sit down with genuine affection for your ally and the best possible of good wishes for the success of their enterprise and the safety of their people. That is the basis on which I would operate with the United States."

Can we imagine Mark Latham talking like that, even with Beazley now at his shoulder?

Beazley faced his first test yesterday, when the Government announced 30 more troops to increase protection for the Australian forces already in Iraq. Beazley wished the soldiers "God speed", said that while we had troops in Iraq they should be properly protected, but encapsulated Labor's policy by saying Australia should "be differently engaged in Iraq - not more deeply, differently".

One problem with Latham on foreign policy is that, as in some other areas, what he actually thinks is unknown or unclear.

He has consistently proclaimed support for the alliance, and it is likely he really does share the standard right-wing Labor view. But his earlier language about Bush makes people wonder how he'd handle the alliance in times of stress. Then again, he lashed out at Bush before he had the responsibility of leadership, and people grow into jobs (and discretion).

The great thing about Beazley is that he has been an alliance manager. For years he has dined out on memories of Australian and US officials fiercely eyeballing each other but it all coming out well in the end.

Beazley is also trying to take some of the sting out of the American attacks on Labor by adopting the role, as he puts it, of "political analyst". If John Howard, such an enthusiastic player in the coalition of the willing, were to lose before the US election, Beazley argues, it would give John Kerry a boost. No wonder, he concludes, the Bush Administration is barking at Labor.